Cory wrote,
However, examine anything in this world closely enough and it is revealed to have no definite beginning or end.
In my opinion, every-
thing has a beginning and an end, which begins and ends with its definition, other than that, one can claim anything at all. It will simply be a poetic expression. Things transform from one thing to another, but forms are definable; even if we say hazy, that is a definable form too.
Yes, our thought, our concepts are what create these divisions,…
Why do you bring up a figure of speech again? Is that what you want me to go by? Could you please stay consistent? It can either be that we create these divisions, or we don’t. Are you saying that it is both ways? The question is, do we really create these divisions, or as a conscious thing, are made aware of these divisions through and because of causal relationships?
...but if you examine even the physiological processes generating thought closely enough, what once seemed distinct from afar, merges. It’s the same if you step back far enough. To end the illusion of boundaries, one must either step back or step in. By staying in the middle, we have only the sense of that which is actually boundaryless, to be divided up in boundaries.
To tell you the truth, I am quite confused with the above as a whole. What are you trying to say? Can you give an example?
Yes, but Huang Po, Lau Tzu and myself would tell you that it is these thoughts (which even in themselves are ultimately boundaryless) that are creating boundaries,
Please do not bring in authorities, for there are a thousand ways to interpret what the people of the old have said. Are we not capable enough to think for ourselves?
and that these thoughts at one point need to be put aside so you can see the actual. Or perhaps, by seeing the actual first, the thoughts are simply seen for what they are.
I don't think so. Thoughts cannot be put aside; even in the most tranquil of a state, the sense of “I†remains. However, one can step back and think about thoughts, and that would mean seeing them for what they are; or is there another type of “seeing†that a conscious thing could use for “seeing� Further more, there can be nothing more actual than what lies within the scope of our consciousness.
Yes, and logic, definitions, concepts……these things need eventually to be put aside. They are a necessary ladder to climb from our animal nature, but like scaffolding, they must be taken down and put away after the job is done.
Sorry… logic, definitions, concepts cannot be put aside, for the very foundation of your consciousness is the concept of “I†to begin with, which is permanent as long as you remain conscious. Saying that “I†have no beginning or end, does not lessen you “I-ness†for a moment, saying that there are no boundaries, does not make you experience, even as a though, a single boundary-less moment. Surely forms are merely forms, but nevertheless, they are forms indeed, as defined.
Ok, I totally agree thre. I’m not saying logic is not necessary, it most certainly is, but eventually it needs to be put away.
Cory, what you are essentially saying is put away consciousness. Is that possible? You tell me to observe from close and afar, but let’s take a look in our back yard; a month old baby is aware of the “I†without verbally conceptualizing it, otherwise it could not interact with all that that it is not. So A=A is imbedded in the minimal of consciousness, that is, differentiation through perceptual identity of forms, which is saying that logic is imbedded in nature. (I am not talking about formal logical systems here, even those I would say are more like ‘reasoning systems’, not logical per say)
You are too caught up, tangled in words, concepts, definitions, thought.
No, not at all; they are merely just that, but we have no other tool to “see†truth.
Thought is a tool that cannot capture the actual, it can only point. You seem to think thought is the actual.
Thought is surely a tool, and it can capture conceptual truths, but I really don’t know what “actual†you are talking about? The only thing “actual†I could consider is, the realization that the tool provides, which again is a thought, and merely just that; and one need not be emotionally attached to even that.
I don’t believe there is actual free will, but it’s obvious that we each have the sensation of free-will.
I really don’t want to go into ‘free-will’ for now, but tell me, what isn’t a sensation so to speak? Isn’t reasoning a sensation itself?
One side and one action is determined to be, and the other, to not.
But I believe, (not as in blind faith though), that it is determined in the Now, not pre-determined going back infinitely as a single causal chain. Causality is far too complex in every which direction, and every when, and its infinite nature nullifies every which direction, and every which when, making the Now the only living moment.
Call it speculation, but I consider what I am about say, as thinking.
I think the basic problem may be that somehow we take causality for a thing, say sub-consciously; just as most cannot really comprehend Totality, or Infinity. May be one thinks of causality like a huge big crankshaft churning every thing around; hidden away beneath the layers of what we call forms. Thereby considering causality something separate than forms, but it is actually forms that affect forms, and we define that transformation as causality.
As far as I can see, causality is no more than a process sensed through our capabilities of detecting motion and transformation, and thereby defining it. Whereas, it can also be seen from the perspective that every form itself has the capability of effecting and being affected by other forms, due to the dynamic state that energy is always in, and forms are not only different forms of energy, but are energy itself.
Now, since our sense of direction, in time, dictates this ‘what comes first’ thought, so it is natural to begin with ‘cause’, as in saying ‘cause and effect, (and never ‘effect and cause’), that transforms into an ‘effect’, and is now considered the next cause, but there is no ‘first cause’ to begin with, then why not say that forms affect other forms to bring forth the next? All that is there is effects affecting multitude of interrelated, but not necessarily directly connected, effects. This would be more conforming to the concept of infinity and the no beginning. Let’s say that we call the process ‘effectuality’ rather than ‘causality’. And come to think of it, the word ‘caused’ necessarily evokes a sense of questioning, as in - what is the purpose? And since there is no inherent purpose for any particular cause, why call it so. Please keep in mind that I’m not saying that there is no process at all, only that this perspective seems more reasonable in the face that there is really no beginning at all, and that there is no point in totality that could be considered a center.
Hence, it could stand to reason, that due to the infinitely diverse reach that ‘effectuality’ has, there is a higher chance of mutation and further diversification, with a much higher chance of creating a highly complex thing, because all forms are not necessarily directly connected, although interrelated. This also explains how and why new and different things come to be that never were. Now, the more complex a thing created, the more can it operate in a calculative manner under the same principal of ‘effectuality’, but now it can do that internally through absorbing and reasoning, and affect other things as an individual, because although it is interrelated to the rest of the things, it is not necessarily directly connected.
Well… that’s all for now… just an attempt to describe something that may reasonably conform to our experiences, logically.
